Royal broadcaster Ian Pelham Turner believes those tensions remain very much alive beneath the surface.

According to Turner, the divisions inside the royal household now extend beyond Harry and Meghan themselves. He argued that King Charles and Prince William have different views about how the Sussexes should be handled, describing “major cracks in the royal family.” Turner even suggested that William was left blindsided by the recent private meeting at Highgrove, while Harry’s ability to once again make use of Buckingham Palace during visits to Britain could represent both a diplomatic breakthrough and, at the same time, “a heart-piercing wound for William.”

The contrast between private reconciliation and public distance illustrates how complicated the situation has become. Reports suggest Meghan’s relationship with King Charles has softened following the family reunion, yet there remains little evidence that relations with William and Catherine have significantly improved.

The disagreements are not limited to family relationships.

Mayer also revisited the bullying allegations that emerged against Meghan in 2021. She explained that she had heard about tensions inside the palace long before those accusations became public, making it clear that “we’re definitely talking about real friction there.” At the same time, she cautioned against automatically interpreting those reports as proof of bullying.

Instead, she portrayed an institution where conflict had been building for years.

According to Mayer, there were genuine tensions not only between Harry and William, but also between the women and within the palace structure itself. Everyone involved, she argued, had been deeply affected by the experience.

Her broader conclusion focused less on personalities and more on the nature of the monarchy itself.

She believes Meghan underestimated how firmly the institution protects the sovereign and the direct heir above everyone else. In that environment, members become uncomfortable whenever someone appears larger, more glamorous, or more popular than the institution itself.

As Mayer put it, “The last thing they wanted to do was make her into some big star.”

Turner expanded on that idea by drawing comparisons with another famous royal figure.

He argued that Meghan’s natural charisma reminded some people inside royal circles of Princess Diana. According to him, palace staff and family members could see Meghan becoming “another Diana in waiting,” raising fears that public attention might once again shift toward an individual rather than the monarchy itself.

Not everyone shares Mayer’s more sympathetic interpretation.

Royal expert Hilary Fordwich argued that the couple’s own decisions cannot be overlooked. In her assessment, Harry and Meghan “have undertaken a fundamentally damaging, deliberate strategy to undermine the royals,” making their estrangement difficult to forgive.

Fordwich maintained that the institution welcomed Meghan, adjusted long-standing traditions, and made exceptions for her. However, she believes Meghan rejected guidance instead of adapting to royal life. As a result, King Charles and Prince William have chosen to build what she described as “a narrower, more disciplined monarchy.”

She went even further, saying that events “could have been very different if Meghan had been dedicated to duty and not to herself and her own aggrandizement.”

British broadcaster Helena Chard reached a similar conclusion, though from a different perspective.

She argued that the monarchy survives because new members learn to adapt. Comparing Meghan with Catherine, Princess of Wales, Chard noted that both women entered the royal family as outsiders, but responded differently to the institution’s expectations.

According to Chard, “The system is tough,” yet it also provided Meghan with support. Ultimately, however, “The system can’t save someone who won’t play ball.” In her opinion, royal life requires accepting sacrifice before gaining influence or recognition.

Still, Mayer’s final reflections suggest that the story may be more complicated than either side admits.

After researching her book and challenging her own assumptions, she reached a conclusion that surprised even herself. She no longer believes Meghan realistically had much chance of succeeding inside Britain’s royal family.

Despite years spent studying the monarchy—including writing a biography of the man who is now King Charles—Mayer admitted she is still struck by how unusual the institution remains behind closed doors.

She recalled the public criticism Meghan received after recreating her curtsy to Queen Elizabeth II in the Harry & Meghan documentary. For Mayer, many viewers misunderstood the real issue.

She argued that most people fail to appreciate “how weird it is” to join a family where members bow privately to the monarch while following a rigid order of precedence. In her words, “The monarchy is essentially a medieval institution with some modern features grafted onto it.”

That observation shifts the conversation away from personalities and toward the institution itself.

Whether one believes Harry and Meghan acted recklessly or courageously, whether the palace failed them or protected its traditions, the central question remains remarkably difficult to answer.

Perhaps the lasting impact of their departure is not simply that trust was broken or reputations were damaged. Instead, it may have exposed how difficult it is for any modern outsider to thrive inside one of the world’s oldest institutions.

As Helena Chard ultimately observed, “the damage has been done.” The royal family has continued moving forward, while hopes for reconciliation remain alive. But rebuilding confidence after years of public conflict will take far more than symbolic meetings.

After all, as she concluded, “Trust takes years to rebuild.”